Case law

Johnson v. Jessup

381 F. Supp. 3d 619 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2019

This evidence is confined to a relevant timeframe and clearly refers to individual traffic defendants. … The court has reviewed the requirements of Rule 23(g) and concludes that Plaintiffs' proposed class counsel are well *638 qualified to represent the two classes in this case.

Deloach v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

206 F.R.D. 551 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 3, 2002

However, case law clearly holds that co-conspirators are jointly liable for all acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Texas Indus., Inc. v. … Rather, they argue that individual damages can be established through the use of economic formulas.

ROGERS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 7, 2020

Amendment immunity. … Stat § 1-52 (establishing three- year statute of limitations for personal injury).

Sumler v. City of Winston-Salem

448 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 1978

This may be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected … Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616-17 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2918 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 843 (1973). *529 However, this prohibition is for “clearly partisan political activity.”

Gaines v. McDonald

152 F. Supp. 3d 464 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 23, 2015

On February 22, 2012, the VA notified Plaintiff in writing that he was being terminated, effective February 23, 2012, due to “failure to qualify during [his] probationary/trial period.” (ECF No. 18-28 ¶ 2.) … Chao, 346 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C Cir.2003) ("§ 633a(d) clearly specifies that the 30-day notice is to go to the ‘Commission.' ").

HOOKER v. THE CITADEL SALISBURY LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 25, 2022

North Carolina courts have not clearly indicated that they would recognize a breach of contract as a basis for a civil conspiracy claim, because to establish that Defendants engaged in “[a] breach … promisor, as a matter of public policy, bore “the duty to use care in the safeguarding of the property from harm, as in the case of a common carrier, an innkeeper or other bailee,” or (iv) that qualified

Johnson v. Harris

166 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 10, 1958

The general rules governing cases of this type are well established. … This has been the established rule in North Carolina since Ledbetter v.

ALLEN v. GLINES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 2, 2019

Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155 (4th Cir. 1980), and the Complaint does not establish that either of these defendants qualify as state actors (see Docket Entry 2 at 1-7). … Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Wyrick v. Apfel

29 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 1998

The medical evidence establishes that Plaintiff has impairments which are “severe” within the meaning of the regulations consisting of residual coronary artery disease, chest wall discomfort from surgery, vascular disease … Clearly, when a claimant has proven he has a disabling condition, the standards under which the Social Security Administration can deny him benefits should be strict.

North Carolina Motorcoach Ass'n Ex Rel. McGill, Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Education

315 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 27, 2004

The first step is for school systems (e.g., Guil-ford County Schools) 3 to establish a list of *789 approved motor carriers. … First, it “ ‘may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.’ ” Id. (quoting Warth v.

WALKER v. PETSENSE LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2021

The statement at issue must be “a statement of fact, not opinion, but an individual cannot preface an otherwise defamatory statement with ‘in my opinion’ and claim immunity from liability.” … While Defendants may be able to establish that they meet this standard in subsequent litigation, they have not met their burden here.

Walnut Street Securities, Inc. v. Lisk

497 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 22, 2007

Petitioner agrees that had the Respondents purchased the securities from Marie Foil, then they clearly would qualify as customers of Walnut Street and could pursue an arbitration claim against it with respect to the sale … In Parsons, the plaintiff sought to establish a cause of action in federal court for violation of NASD rules.

Johnson v. Angels

125 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2015

Here, the Amended Complaint clearly pleads facts that relate to federal law claims, thus supporting federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. (See Am. … Johnson is required to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible basis for believing that she was discharged “became of [her] race.” See id.

Young v. EDGCOMB STEEL COMPANY

363 F. Supp. 961 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 7, 1973

Duke Power Co., supra: “Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. … The testimony of Johnie Young at trial and his written complaint to the E.E.O.C., admitted as evidence herein, prove to the Court that he is not so qualified.

JIANG, M.D v. DUKE UNIVERSITY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 22, 2023

Here, the Court first finds that the intracorporate immunity doctrine bars part of Plaintiff’s claim, but not all of it. … The Complaint also does not clearly set out the legal relationship between Defendants Duke University and Duke University Health System. (See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5–12.)

STEPHENS v. BULLARD

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

and governmental immunity. … Clearly, there are genuine issue of material fact that have not yet been resolved.

MIDGETT v. COOPER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2021

immunity; and the deliberate indifference claims fail because Shannon was voluntarily employed. … Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing under Section 1983, the court need not address the Individual Defendants’ remaining 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) arguments.

CHESNEY v. DUDEK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 2025

(quoting Tr. 30)), qualifies as “meaningless” (id.), because Dr. … Kipnis’s statement that Plaintiff’s symptoms “prevent her from working, even in a sedentary position, on a regular basis” (Tr. 545 (emphasis added)) clearly qualifies as a “[s]tatement[] about what

Chambers v. McLean Trucking Co., Inc.

550 F. Supp. 1335 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 15, 1982

It does not establish the absence of genuine issues of fact or require the Court to grant judgment to one side or the other. … Civ.P. 23(a) & (b)(3) are clearly met for a class of lesser scope than that which plaintiffs seek.

HOLSEY-HYMAN v. CITY OF DURHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 2025

Because she did not do so, she has failed to plead a plausible claim of 3 Rehberg argues, in a footnote, that she is entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 14 at 26 n.7.) … Immunity questions are not ordinarily relegated to such treatment. Because the court has determined that Dr.